CITYOF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Vald Svekis, Chair Members Present: Robert Lindsay, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Chris Gallagher, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney David Smith, General Manager-Neghborhood & Development Services Gretchen Schneider, General Manager-Planning & Development Alex DavisShaw, City Engineer Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL! MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Svekis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll, and announced that quorum is achieved for this Planning Board meeting. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY General Manager Smith noted that there was a change to the order of the day in regards to the first Non-Quasi-Judicial public hearing, and stated that Attorney Connolly will address it. Attorney Connolly stated that APPLICATION 15-ZTA-01 was to be presented this evening by City Attorney Fournier, but they need to continue that to next month's Planning Board meeting, as there is an issue that has risen with respect to a possible exemption, and Mr. Fournier did not want to bring half the package to the Planning Board, he wants to bring the complete package. So, with the Planning Board's concurrence, Legislative APPLICATION 15-ZTA-01 will be rescheduled to next month's Planning Board meeting, on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, at 6:00 P.M., City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1565 First Street. Vice Chair Lindsay asked if there is a procedure to be followed regarding re- advertising. Attorney Connolly said, yes there is, and it was covered by what he just said, sO that anyone who was present at this meeting for this application knows about the continuance, and the date, time, and location. There were no other changes to the Order of the Day. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 39 III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading oft the Pledge of Conduct Manager Smith read the Pledge of Contact. "We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another; wue will direct all comments to issues; we will avoid personal attacks. 1 B. Non Quasi-udicial Public Hearings 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - SIGNS: Application 15-ZTA-01 nraposes to amend Section VII-109 of the Zoning Code, entitled uC: all Zoning Districts" to provide that for nure stalled signs in the public right of CONTINUED TO 2/11/15 MEETING the word "sign" shall have its a rlarrower definition of the word "s oI me Zoning Code shall not apply. (Robert M. Fou 7 cny Attorney) PB Chair Svekis requested Attorney Connolly explain the procedures for the quasi- judicial public hearings. Attorney Connolly stated that the first two public hearings to follow are Street Vacations, and those are legislative public hearings, but the third public hearing is an Adjustment, and that is a quasi-judicial public hearing; continued to say that a quasi-judicial public hearing is more. formal than a legislative public hearing; pointed out there are parties in the quasi-judicial public hearing, which include the city, the applicant and anyone who has applied for and qualifies for what is called "affected person" status, according to the criteria set forth in the City's Zoning Code; explained that parties have the opportunity to present evidence in the form of testimony, expert testimony and documentary evidence, parties have an opportunity to cross examine witnesses, and to present a closing or rebuttal; stated that in the quasi-judicial public hearing the decision of the Planning Board must be made based upon competent and substantial evidence on the record; explained that, consequently, at the beginning of that public hearing, members of the Planning Board will indicate if they have had any "ex-parte" communications, which is contact, with regard to the matter, outside of this public hearing; noted that the purpose is to bring to this table all the matters that are part of the criteria and facts the Planning Board will be relying upon. Attorney Connolly explained the time limits for the public hearings to follow; stated that for the two Right-of-Way Vacations, according to the City's rules of procedure, the applicant and the city each are entitled to 15 minutes, and citizen testimony will be 5 minutes; with regard to the quasi-judicial, he recommended that the applicant and the City each be allowed 10 minutes for their presentation; noted that there are no applications for affected person status, and recommended three minutes for citizen testimony. Responding to PB Chair Svekis' question, all PB members said they found the time limits acceptable. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 39 Attorney Connolly administered the oath for those who planned to speak at the public hearings. 2. 950 S. OSPREY AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY VACATION: Application 15-SV-03 is a request to vacate a 10 ft wide by 150 ft. long unimproved alley right-of-way running north and south located west of Osprey Avenue, abutting property with a street address of 950 S. Osprey Avenue. The purpose of the right-of-way vacation is to consolidate both lots owned by the applicant as one site. (LUCIA PANICA, PLANNER) Applicant Presentation: Applicant Mr. Joel Freedman stated that he is representing Ms. Theresa Michael, who is in the audience, and owns the property on 950 S. Osprey Avenue; stated that he has been in Sarasota for a long time but he did not realize this property existed, he has driven by Ms. Michael's house many times but did not know what was behind the house; explained that he wants to give a little context about how this 10 ft. right-of- way alley fits into the overall neighborhood, and how, in his opinion, it really is of no use to anyone, and that is why he believes the right-of way vacation can be justified. Mr. Freedman referred to the Aerial Location Map (2011) Alley Right-of-Way Vacation 15-SV-03 (page 7 of the PB packet); pointed to the location of Osprey Avenue and Hudson Bayou; then pointed to the two lots west of Osprey Avenue that have the same PID number, whose total acreage is about 36,000 square feet, and the location of the 10 ft. wide alley outlined in red, that is located between them; stated that Ms. Michael wants to vacate this right-of-way because, in the future, she wants the heirs to the property to have a nice single consolidated piece of property. She does not have any development plans, the property is not under contract, she plans to continue living there for quite a while, but this is an unusual situation with the two parcels; pointed out that there is another alley, running east-west of her property, which they are leaving as is; presented the Boundary Survey (19/11/2014) (page 26 of the PB packet) which illustrates more clearly the location of the rights-of-way; he stated that he went to Mr. Robinson, the surveyor, and looked at the original plat for this area, which shows Ms. Michael's property and the alley that runs east-west; stated that the two abutting lots on the north of Ms. Michael's] property were subdivided in 2004 or 2005, and presently is the location of Lincoln Park on Hudson Bayou subdivision; as a result, this 10 ft. alley abuts a portion of a lot in Lincoln Park subdivision; stated that there has been communication between Ms. Michael and the property owner of that lot, there is a wall there, and for the property owner to get half of the vacated alley, the owner has to move the wall; and said he is not sure that will happen. Mr. Freedman presented another map from the Sarasota County Property Appraiser' S office, illustrating Ms. Michael's property, in green outline, and showing the location of the surrounding parcels; pointed out that the row of parcels located to the south of the east-west alley that abuts Ms. Michael's property all have access to Alta Vista Street, or Osprey Avenue; stated that both the east-west alley located south of Ms. Michael's lots, and not subject to this application and the north-south alley that bisects Ms. Michael's property, are completely unimproved. Mr. Freedman showed pictures of Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 39 the unimproved north-south alley, which is blocked on the west side by the wall of the abutting property in the Lincoln Park subdivision, and on the south side by fully grown vegetation that prevents access or connection to the second alley that runs east- west. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked how one accesses the north-south alley. Mr. Freedman replied that one must go through Ms. Michael's property, or try to access it from the east-west alley. Mr. Freedman showed a picture of the east-west alley, demonstrating that this also is an unimproved alley, and pointed out the single family homes that abut it and use it as a driveway; stated that the vacation of the north-south alley does not impact the east-west alley in any way, because only two properties located at the southeast end of the east-west alley may be using the alley to reach Osprey Ave; stated that refuse collection for the same homes is not impacted as the residents of the homes currently wheel their refuse out to Osprey Avenue; pointed out that the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) does not permit dead end alleys; added that the City Engineering Department wants the applicants to not vacate the twenty feet at the south end of the north-south alley, in order to accommodate a "T" turnaround for the east-west running alley. Mr. Freedman stated that, in his opinion, it would be impossible for someone to back up in this small area because the alleys are only 10 ft. wide; said that most alleys are 20 ft wide, and a "T" turnaround would make sense for the wider alleys but not in this case; stated that he believes that no one will use the east-west running alley unless the properties between the alley and Alta Vista Street redevelop, and the City requires them to widen the alley; pointed out that the back portion of Ms. Michael's property is not developable; said that he believes that there will be two homes on the site some day, because of the separation created by the north south alley, and that by letting the two portions combine now, someday in the future Ms. Michael's heirs will be able to build one large house, or possibly build two homes on the property. Mr. Freedman stated that staff recommends approval of the application, if twenty feet at the south end of the north-south alley are not vacated, but he and his client, respectfully, do not want to do that, because no one will use it, they want to clean up the area; and requested the Planning Board not to require this condition. PB member Siegel asked if there was any history of complaints of problems in relation to this parcel. Mr. Freedman responded that he is not aware of any such history; and noted that Ms. Michael has owned the property since the early 1960's. PB: member Siegel asked, if the EDCM criteria are followed, can Mr. Freedman point out any adverse public interest if the Planning Board were to approve this application. Mr. Freedman responded, "No," showed the pictures of the alley with the overgrown vegetation, repeated that no one uses the alley to access their home, and that this has been the case since the 1960s, and concluded that he believes the application meets all the criteria. PB member Ahearn-Koch requested to revisit the map, and asked if they have considered making the alley 20 ft., and "shaving off "the south side of the property creating the necessary amount of land to accommodate the width of 20 ft., SO that a car can turn around in the alley. Mr. Freedman responded that the EDCM calls for a "T," or a cull-de-sac to facilitate the turnaround. PB member Gallagher noted that Mr. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of 39 Freedman testified that the east-west alley was unimproved, however in the photograph it appeared to be paved. Mr. Freedman responded that it is shell, it is dirt. PB: member Gallagher asked if there were any utilities running down the alley. Mr. Freedman responded, "No, not even COMCAST, or other private utilities." 1 PB member Gallagher asked if the zoning allows for the development of two homes on Ms. Michael's property. Mr. Freedman explained that is possible, it is 36, 000 sq. ft., and one needs a minimum lot of 10,000 sq. ft.; and added that the minimum lot width causes a problem. PB member Gallagher asked if Ms. Michael could have two homes on a single lot. Mr. Freedman responded that the lots would have to be split; pointed to the homes south of the east-west alley, and explained that there were four on a single lot because they were built a long time ago when the rules were different. PB member Gallagher noted that right now the applicant and the other three property owners of the properties abutting the east-west alley could put up a wall down the alley, and it would become a 10 ft. wide drive aisle, if that is what you want to call it; and he stated that he thinks it is probably accurate to say that trying to turn a car 10 ft. into a 10 ft. alley would be a pretty difficult operation, unless it is a small car. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked if the applicant had any discussions with the other property owners to the south about the possibility of vacating both alleys; noted that the property owners to the west could be given easements to continue accessing Osprey Avenue, if they need it, eliminating the public aspect; explained that one thing that concerns him about this, is that basically there is a 10 ft. strip, that anybody can wander down the people's back yards in the middle of the night, it's completely legal, and there is nothing the police or anyone else can do about it; added that this is a security issue, that the alley has no practical use except as a driveway for some of the houses on the south side of the east-west alley; stated that access can be accommodated by a private easement, but if it is a private easement, it would be private property, and if people who should not be there started wandering around, that would be considered trespassing. Mr. Freedman responded that they did not talk to the other property owners; explained that Ms. Michael and her husband talked about doing this for years, unfortunately he passed away, and now she wants to geti it done; and added that the neighbors did not come to the neighborhood workshop. PB Chair Svekis referred to Mr. Freedman's letter to the City Auditor and Clerk, dated November 6, 2014 (Page 9 of the PB packet), pointed out that the last sentence of the second paragraph states, "In addition, Ms. Michael has agreed that ift the Showalter's sare interested that they could be deeded 1 oft the vacated property, " and asked if that is automatically done by the city after the vacation of right-of-way. Mr. Freedman responded that this issue needs to be cleared up, if they want it; explained the reason why he thinks they are not going to want it is because they have a substantial wall; added, if they were to take 5 ft. [half of the alley width], they would have to move the wall, or somehow get approval to maintain that 5 ft.; added they would need to get approval from Ms. Michael to go on her private property to maintain the 5: ft. strip of land, to mow the grass; stated that he believes, once this application goes, he and Ms. Michael will meet with them and tell them that, if they really want this 5 ft. strip, they Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 39 need to move the wall; and concluded that, in his opinion, they are not going to want to do that for 5 ft. Staff Presentation: Planner Lucia Panica introduced herself for the record, and stated that the applicant's presentation was thorough, therefore she will keep her presentation short; referred to the Boundary Survey (19/11/2014) (page 26 of the PB packet), and stated that the 150 ft. by 10 ft. unimproved alley is located between Osprey Avenue and Pomelo Avenue, dead ends behind the property facing Lincoln Park Circle, and it is only accessible from the east-west alley, as shown by the highlights on the survey; added that she has shaded on the survey the 20 ft. "T" turn around that is required by the EDCM; stated that the parcels on both sides of the alley are owned by the same person, they have the same ID number, and the owner wants to vacate the alley to combine the lots; noted that the zoning category is RSF-1, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft., and an 80 ft. wide street frontage; added that a quick calculation of the square footage indicates that there is sufficient footage for three lots, however, with the lot width requirements you can get two lots, possibly three depending on the configuration, but it will be a challenge to get three lots on the property; stated that as it stands now, the lot west of the easement is not buildable; referred to page 3 of the staff report, second paragraph, the beginning of line 14, and she corrected the typographical error, it should read VI-101(1)(1) of the Zoning Code; pointed out that the east-west running alley is considered to be two separate alleys, with the western portion being 161.5 ft., and the eastern portion being 132.5 ft.; explained that if the north-south alley is vacated, then it makes the east-west running alley over 200 feet, which the EDCM does not allow without a "T" turnaround, or cul-de-sac, or a similar mechanism; stated that staff's first condition is to provide a 20 ft. set back for a future turnaround at the point where the north-south alley meets the east-west alley, or to vacate the western portion of the east-west alley, for which they would have to talk to the property owners to the south of that alley, and go through this process again; shared two pictures depicting two views of the unimproved east-west alley; mentioned that City Engineer DavisShaw is in the audience, should they have questions directly related to engineering or the EDCM requirements; and concluded that staff recommends the following: Based on evidence in the record and the applicable standards for review, staff recommends the following motion: Adopt a motion to find Street Vacation 15-SV-03 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to the following conditions: 1. A condition precedent to the effective date oft the vacation of the alley right-of-way, the applicant, shall either set the-right- of-way vacation limits back to provide space for a 20 foot "T" turnaround or working with abutting property owners, shall vacate the western 161.5 feet portion oft the east west alley right-of-zoay. 2. Upon completion oft the above condition, the City will record a Notice of Effective Date ofStreet Vacation in the Official Records of Sarasota County. Alternatively, failure to meet these conditions one (1) year after the date oft the approval shall render Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 39 the vacation approval void and a Notice of Failure of Street Vacation shall be recorded in the Public Records of Sarasota County. PB member Gallagher stated that he looked in the Zoning Code for a definition of the term "unimproved," to determine if shell constitutes being improved or not, and there is no definition, SO he will take everyone else's word that unimproved means there is not pavement and there are no utilities running down on the right-of-way; and asked if that is correct. Planner Panica confirmed that this is her understanding: and added that there are no utilities on the east-west alley as well. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked if anyone tried to see if a normal size car can turn from a 10 ft. alley to another 10 ft. alley, without getting on the private property; Planner Panica responded that she is not aware of anyone doing this, however she would like to refer the question to City Engineer DavisShaw, who has more experience in these issues. City Engineer DavisShaw introduced herself for the record, and said they have not tried that experiment; stated that this is not the ideal scenario, but staff tried to provide some way for the vehicles to turn around, if necessary, or provide the starting point, if in the future there is redevelopment there, and they want to be able to access the alley, at least the City has maintained some of the right-of-way SO they can build upon it, if necessary; and concluded that it is not the ideal width for either one of the alleys. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay added that it may not even be practical at all. City Engineer DavisShaw agreed that it would be very difficult and noted the City cannot condemn the property, sO the best staff can do is maintain the right-of-way for a turnaround. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay pointed out that staff is retaining property for a turnaround that might not work as a turnaround without violating someone's private property. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that it is the same situation now, there is no way to turnaround vehicles that go in there; pointed out the cars have to back all the way down. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay said it may just be more practical and easier to just back out. City Engineer DavisShaw said that it depends on the driver. PB Vice- Chair Lindsay noted that if the western portion of the east-west alley is vacated then the issue of the turnaround becomes irrelevant, and cars that drive in there would have to back out. City Engineer DavisShaw agreed, explaining that if that part was vacated, the remainder of the alley will be less than 200 ft and it would not be required to have a turnaround. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked for clarification, noted if the Planning Board were to go with the staff recommendation, then the back of the east-west alley would be vacated, and then this little piece [the 20 ft setback for the turnaround] would be done away with. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that would not be recommended. PB Chair Svekis asked how fire safety works in those back properties. City Engineer DavisShaw responded that right now, fire safety is provided on the main road, and the Fire Department has said that they do not need the alley as a configuration; added that if, in the future, there is development on the parcel then staff would have to address fire safety and potentially staff would have to request some type of widening, if in fact the Fire Department needs the alley for fire safety; and said that at this point in time they do not need it. PB Chair Svekis clarified his question, stating that he is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 39 asking about the properties at the west end of the east-west alley, and expressed he was curious how they can get insurance. Planner Panica stated that they have frontage at Alta Vista Street. Pointing to the aerial photograph, City Engineer DavisShaw repeated that the Fire Department is not currently using the alley for fire protection, if there is redevelopment of the area, they may need it, but the Fire Department will have to comment on that. PB Chair Svekis requested additional information regarding the situation with the Showalter property, specifically asking if they have to move the wall or if there were other alternatives. Attorney Connolly stated that the City has an easement on the north-south alley that is being requested to be vacated, SO that means that the adjoining property owners on that plat would own the fee simple title to the middle [of the alley], they each own their own 5 ft.; added that the portion that abuts the new property, if the city vacated the 10: ft. wide north-south right-of-way, as a matter of law, the east one-half would be owned by Ms. Michael and the west one-half would be owned by the Showalters. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked what happens if they decline it. Attorney Connolly said they can do a Quit Claim, which would be from the Showalters to Ms. Michael, SO that she would get the entire 10 ft., and of course she would get the entire 10 ft. south of that because she owns both sides; added that happens as a matter of law. PB Chair Svekis asked if there is a requirement to move their wall 5 ft. Attorney Connolly explained that they would in essence be giving up that 5 ft. because they would not be maintaining it, Ms. Michael would, SO she would in essence be taking it by adverse possession. There were no more questions, and there were no speaker cards for public input. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB member Gallagher made the following motion, which was seconded by PB Vice- Chair Lindsay: Motion: I move we find Street Vacation 15-SV-03 consistent with Section IV-1306 oft the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to No. 2 condition (not No. 1 condition) recommended by staff. No. 2 condition by staff states: Upon completion ofthe above condition, the City will record a Notice of Efèctive Date of Street Vacation in the Official Records of Sarasota County. Alternatively, failure to meet these conditions one (1) year after the date of the approval shall render the vacation approval void and a Notice of Failure ofs Street Vacation shall be recorded in the Public Records of Sarasota County. PB Gallagher stated that this clearly met the test for standards of review; explained that he happens to live in a place that has a very tight circumstance, and it is far more generous than 10 ft. by 10 ft., SO he cannot even imagine someone trying to make that maneuver; added that someone may occasionally drive down that way, and may have to back out on Osprey Avenue, but there are people who have to back out on to Osprey every single day, from their homes, sO to create this condition for that once- in-a-life-time sort of situation, he does not think it is necessary. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 39 PB Vice-Chair Lindsay agreed with what PB member Gallagher said; explained that, in his opinion, down the road the western portion of the other alley will probably be vacated, because there is really no reason to exist, SO it may as well go to the due property owner sO the City is relieved of its liability; said that at that point the other question becomes moot; added that the alleys do not seem to serve any purpose anyway, except for that one property owner who is using it as an extended driveway; pointed out that those things can always be handled through private easements; and concluded that potentially the entire east-west alley could be vacated. Attorney Connolly had a question for both the mover and the seconder; expressed confusion about keeping Condition #2 without Condition #1, because Condition #2 is relying on Condition # 1, noting Condition #2 states, "Upon completion of the above condition.. " and then it also says, 1 failure to meet these conditions one (1) year after the date ofthe approval. . - " would make the vacation void; stated that it is not his job to make motions, he was not trying to change the motion; and suggested that the mover and the seconder may want to think about the motion having either both conditions, or having no conditions. PB member Gallagher amended his motion to state "with no conditions," 1 and PB Vice-Chair [the seconder] agreed with the amended language of the motion. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated that the little piece [20 ft. setback for a "T" turnaround) should be kept, because the City recommends it, and she thinks it is a safer way to be; agreed with PB Vice-Chair Lindsay in that someday the western portion of the east-west alley will be vacated, and at that time, they can vacate this little portion as well; therefore she will not support the motion. PB member Siegel stated there is no reason to oppose this, there is no history that there have been any problems with it, except sheer speculation; and stated that in terms of what is before the Planning Board, and in terms of what the record is, he supports the motion. PB: member Ahearn-Koch made a clarification; stated that she supports the vacation of the north-south alley, but does not support not having the little setback for the turnaround. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked staff if there is any specification in the ECDM for a 10: ft. wide turnaround, particularly from a 10 ft. wide alley. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that this is outside the City's standard design parameters. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay pointed out that if there are no design standards, then you cannot call it a "T" turnaround, because it does not meet the specifications of the ECDM. City Engineer Davis Shaw replied that the 10 ft. turnaround is smaller than the City's turnaround design, but you cannot request additional property beyond the right-of- way. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay added that then it would not be called a "T" turnaround by the ECDM definitions. City Engineer Davis Shaw stated it is a substandard design. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 39 PB Chair Svekis said that in his view this is a phantom alley, one would never find that alley even if one have reason for it, sO he supports the motion, because it is the only reasonable thing to do there. The motion passed 4/1 with Ms. Ahearn-Koch voting no. 3. MAY LANE RIGHT OF WAY VACATION: Application 15-SV-04 is a request to vacate a 40: ft. wide by 280 ft. long right-of-way running east and west located between Cocoanut Avenue and Florida Avenue known as May Lane. The purpose of the right- of-way vacation is to consolidate the right-of-way into the abutting properties (owned by the applicant) for purposes of transferring density for the proposed development known as Cityside. Thea applicant will grant a public access easement and utility easement to the City. (LUCIA PANICA, PLANNER) Staff Presentation: Planner Lucia Panica introduced herself for the record; stated that this petition is for a Street Vacation for May Lane bounded by Cocoanut Ave to the east, Florida Avenue to the west, Blvd of the Arts to the south and 10th Street to the North; added this segment of May Lane is 40 ft. wide by 280 ft. long, is improved, is classified as a primary street, contains City and franchise utilities; pointed out that the segment of May Lane to the east is public and cuts through the Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences (SSAS), then dead ends at Central Avenue; added the segment of May Lane to the west cuts through the Renaissance development and it is considered a private street; explained that the subject segment of May Street bisects two properties under common ownership, and it is highlighted in red on the Aerial Location Map (2011 Aerial) (page 10 of the PB packet); stated that the property is proposed to be developed as a multifamily development known as Cityside; stated that the applicant is requesting the vacation to allow for the transfer of approximately 30 dwelling units from the northern lot, which is Phase II, to the southern lot, which is Phase I of the development, and, also to allow the applicant to design the streetscape on May Lane, and to facilitate the location of drainage pipes for stormwater, underneath May Lane; pointed out that the outcome of the vacation is the ability to use the square footage of the right-of-way for additional density; explained that prior to the recently approved Rosemary Overlay District (RROD) these lots allowed for 25 units per acre; pointed out that currently, due to the RROD, they are allowed 75 units per acre, resulting in an overall increase from 157 units to 472 units for the 6.3 acres total combined for the both lots; added that following the approval of the RROD, the applicant was granted vacation of Rosemary Lane right-of way, and that provided an additional 19 dwelling units; stated that the proposed vacation of May Lane will provide an additional 19 dwelling units for a maximum total of 510 dwelling units for the whole site; noted that if the vacation is granted a public access easement and a utilities easement will be granted back to the City along with easements for the relocation of the franchise utilities; pointed out that there is still concern about the maintenance of the utilities, parking enforcement, and streetscape issues that may arise; and stated that, the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 39 vacation request IS in conflict with action strategy 2.8 of the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, that states: The City wuill not vacate any public rights-of-ways or easements unless they are not in use, provide no benefit and they are not in the best interests for the City to maintain for future use.. Planner Panica stated that May Lane is being used by the public and there is no plan to not use it in the future; and provided the following comments after looking up the standards for review for street vacations found in Section IV- 1306 of the Zoning Code: (1) The benefit to the general public of the existing street, right-or-vay, easement or non- fee interest; The public uses the right-of-way for pedestrian and vehicular circulation. There are public utilities in the right-of-way therefore the general public will not benefit from the right-of-way vacation. The applicant has proffered to grant a public access and utility easement back to the City, resulting in small perceived change at the surface level, possibly for the public. (2) The rearrangements ofs streets, rights-of-zoay, easements or non-fee interests wohich will be required to secure a regular and harmonious system for traffic circulation if the vacation is granted; No rearrangement of streets will be granted as long as the public access easement is granted back to the City. Rearrangements of easements will be required as a result of the vacation as public access; Utility easement S will be granted to the City, and private utility easements will be granted to Verizon, Florida Power and Light, and Comcast. (3) Whether the street, right-of-zay, easement or non-fee interest has been improved, and the extent to which it is currently, or in the future will be, utilized by the general public; The subject right-of-way is improved and it is a fully functioning street, and is being maintained by the City of Sarasota for access and utility services, it is being used by the public for pedestrian and vehicular use and there is no plan to disconnect usage. The applicant has proffered to grant an easement back to the City for public access and utilities as well as other private utilities that are located on the property. The public will still be able to use the vacated right-of way for pedestrian and vehicular services but will be subject to different standards in parking regulations, possibly. The public may also be limited in congregating and exercising the right of free speech with the change from public to private owner. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 39 (4) Whether the vacation is proposed in conjunction with an application for development approval for adjacent property; and The right-of-way vacation is tied to the RROD as was the Rosemary Lane vacation, and the building permit was filed yesterday (1/13/2015), it has not been reviewed yet, sO there are indications of future projects; because it is located within the downtown, site plan approval is not required that is why they went straight to development permit. (5) Whether the proposed vacation is in the public interest. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow the applicant to transfer density from one property to the other, capture additional density, locate private utilities within the right-of-way, and design the right-of-way to fit the multi-family project design. While this is primary a benefit to the property owner and the developer, the vacation of May Lane with the appropriate easements and in combination with the adjacent development may be viewed as having neutral impact and limited benefit to the public. Benefits to the public will include construction jobs, increased tax rolls, transfer of maintenance responsibility to the private entity and additional housing responsibilities if the housing opportunities, especially if the affordable housing requirement applies (which is one of the conditions in the staff review). The most notable detriment to the public is that it will lose the current right of assembly in the public right-of-way with the potential of use, parking, and other restrictions potentially imposed by the applicant. May Lane is currently classified as a primary street, and, if it is vacated, the development is no longer subject to the primary street design requirements, and that is why staff tried to address it in the conditions, should the Planning Board decide to approve the vacation of the right-of-way. Planner Panica stated that while staff acknowledges that the vacation of the right-of- way would allow greater flexibility in the design of the project, it is not required in order to proceed with development, and there are other available options to meet the applicant's s goals; explained that for the transfer of density the applicants can use the option currently in the Zoning Code under section VI-104 (a) (2) that talks about the affordable housing element; added that for the streetscape and facilitating the drainage pipes a maintenance agreement and a Major Encroachment agreement can be obtained; and concluded that based on the evidence in the record and the applicable standards for review, staff finds Street Vacation 15-SV-04 inconsistent with Section IV- 1306 of the Zoning Code and recommends the Planning Board recommend to the City Commission denial of the Street Vacation. PB member Siegel stated that based on the staff comments, staff seem to be supporting the fact that all the key elements, the major things that staff would consider in the vacation of a right-of-way like this have been satisfied; added that all the letters from the public sector companies say that they have no objections and they support it; pointed out that the developers are going to maintain it, and they have invested a lot of money there; said that he drove over there and it is in a miserable shape, in his Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 39 view, and that is going to be upgraded; stated he read the comments and most of the people in the workshop support this; pointed out that he is a great advocate of the Rosemary District taking off, and just because the developers may realize more density here, we [Planning Board and staff] should be supporting it for that reason; stated that the public interest, the public element of this application, the City does not seem to support with something tangible, why that is not being satisfied, with all the things that are part of this record; and asked Planner Panica if she can comment on that. Planner Panica responded that the comprehensive plan clearly states that the City shall not vacate rights-of-way that are in use. PB member Siegel stated "That's discretionary." 1 He stated that the application of that is discretionary, and is specifically designed to be decided on a case by case basis; pointed out that there are enough advantages and enough positive factors overall, that he thinks, the public sector will benefit from this; and added that the developers are not trying to get out from any of their responsibilities. Planner Panica stated that staff supports the overall project but there are other ways of achieving their goal instead of vacating the street. PB member Siegel stated that it is not a basis of denying the vacation of the right-of-way; added that there are always going to be other ways you can do something, but as far as what is before the Planning Board, he does not see on what basis the Planning Board could deny this, and he could not support staff's S recommendation. Planner Panica stated that staff provided alternative motions if the Planning Board did not want to concur with staff's S recommendation. PB member Siegel stated, that that is going through more hoops, and it is a negative as far as he is concerned. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked Planner Panica to elaborate on the comment that if May Lane is no longer a primary street then the design requirements are no longer enforceable. Planner Panica stated that there are additional design requirements in the Zoning Code under Table 6.1004 about maximum setbacks, certain amount of habitable space for street frontage, there are design requirements to promote pedestrian access to the street and make it pedestrian friendly, noting these would not apply, but regular design standards would apply. PB: member Ahearn-Koch asked if the City has contacted the Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences (SSAS) about this. Planner Panica responded "No." PB member Ahearn Koch added that this street is used, every day, twice a day, and is heavily relied upon for the circulation of that school for pick up and drop off, SO she was concerned if there were any discussions about that. PB member Ahearn-Koch had questions about the alternative motions on page 2 of the staff report, beginning with condition #5, which states: "5. A condition preceding the second reading of the May Lane Vacation Ordinance, the applicant, at their sole expense, shall provide a 40' wide non- exclusive easement for public pedestrian and vehicular access. 1 Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 14 of 39 PB: member Ahearn-Koch asked for the definition of "non-exclusive easement" and if that definitely precludes general assembly. Attorney Connolly explained that "non- exclusive easement" means that the easement is not exclusively for the benefit of the City of Sarasota. The property owner for example can grant an easement to COMCAST to place facilities in there, and added, as far as public assembly is concerned, if it is not a public right-of-way, it would not be a public forum. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if there is a burden on the applicant to prove the benefit to the general public of vacating this street, or is use of the word "burden" too strong. Attorney Connolly stated that he would not use the word "burden," and added that if there is an obligation it is up to the Planning Board to make sure that the recommendation is based upon the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code, and those are the five criteria Planner Panica went through and they are also listed on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that when she was going through the staff report and was seeing all these pros and cons, she saw a lot of cons, but then in the motion, she saw a way around it; the only thing that staff did not make a way around, was the general assembly portion of it; pointed out that staff recommended denial, but then said to the Planning Board if you are going to approve this - let's do this, let's do that, let's do this... the affordable housing,- SO the only thing that is missing from that list of conditions is the general assembly; staff makes a way around back to the City for everything except for the general assembly. Planner Panica agreed that that is the only item she did not touch on in the alternative motions, and asked if a way around that is to make it a public right-of-way? Attorney Connolly pointed out that if it is public, then why vacate it, it is either private or public. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the developers can do anything they want, if they can develop exactly the way they want to, without vacating the street. Planner Panica responded that is correct; there are alternative options to achieve their goals. PB member Ahearn-Koch summarized stating that either way the developers can do what they want, in one way the public loses the right to general assembly and in the other way the City keeps May Lane. PB Member Gallagher stated, the other thing that is not clear here is that they cannot transfer the density, they cannot bring stormwater utilities across the right-of-way without Encroachment Agreements, it isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, either way... . Planner Panica explained that the developers can either vacate the street, which they are proposing to do to fulfill their goals, granting the easements back, etc., or they can get a Major Encroachment Agreement for the stormwater goals they are trying to fulfill, and a Maintenance Agreement for the streetscape; added that in order to transfer the density over they can apply based on the existing standards in the Zoning Code; pointed out that they would not be able to use the additional density within the right-of-way, there is no option to do that. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked how many units we are talking about costing them, if they do not have the land area of the right-of-way. Planner Panica answered 19 units. PB member Gallagher added it is the right-of-way land area and then the transfer of density across the right-of-way. Planner Panica stated that the transferred density is 30 units, that is what they are Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 15 of 39 requesting, and the additional units they would obtain from the right- of- way would be 19 units. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if there is a way to get the 19 units and transfer the density. City Planner Panica responded "Not both, they can transfer the density but they cannot get the additional 19 units." PB member Gallagher asked, how can they transfer if you have the right-of-way there? Planner Panica responded that there is a Section in the Zoning Code that allows for transfer of the density if there is a right-of-way in between, if they provide affordable housing. PB member Gallagher stated that is not an apples to apples comparison. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if it is a bad thing to do affordable housing, and asked is it something we do not want as a City? Planner Panica stated that she cannot answer that question. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that the essence is that there is a minimum cost of 19 units, which is a substantial impact in your ability to deliver affordable housing, and it is a substantial reduction in the density of the project. Planner Panica stated that the option of transferring density has not been utilized yet. PB member Gallagher stated that he found interesting the following comment in the staff report (p. 9, Review Standard 5, beginning of last sentence), : The most notable detriment to the public would be to lose its current right ofpublic assembly within the right-of way..., added, that if we had a crisis in the City of places for public assembly, he might agree with staff there; pointed out that what the City is wrestling with is improving this district, trying to get more apartments downtown, and get more affordable housing downtown; and as someone who lives in the Rosemary District, there are many days when he wishes we would restrict public assembly in this and several of those streets, because he has to deal with it; added that he does not think we have a crisis for places for public assembly, as a matter of fact, if someone wanted to have a public assembly and scream their free speech rights, they can 8o to the end of the block, and there are miles around they can do it; said that is the strongest thing, and the trade off is the public gets hundreds of more people living downtown, all kinds of tax benefits from those people moving downtown, safety because of all those people moving downtown; added that one of the things we created in the City is we created this tough situation to put housing in downtown, because we have allowed some uses in the neighborhood that are very tough; pointed out the ability to control two of these sidewalks really helps this project out, and he does not see the great disservice to the public in it; stated that he recognizes what staff is saying is true, but in his view it is "this" big and all the other benefits to the public from this happening rise over it. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to all in the audience who were not sworn in at the beginning of the meeting. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Bill Merrill, Esq., of the Icard and Merrill Law Firm, introduced himself and those with him: Joel Freedman, of Freedman Consulting and Development; Kurt Jensen and Phil Smith, who represent the owner Rosalyne Holdings, LLC, for the Cityside Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 16 of 39 project; added that Bruce Weiner and Debra Alward were in the audience tonight, and James Pullman and Jim Barber who are developers for this project as well. Mr. Merrill pointed out that Mr. Wyner and Rosalyne Holdings are really game changers for the Rosemary District and the surrounding businesses; pointed out that Cityside is intended to be a first class residential apartment project, and he believes it will be the catalyst project to create a functional and sustainable urbanized community in the Rosemary District; added that, as they stated before during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and other procedures, Cityside will enhance the economic vitality not only in the Rosemary District, but also in the surrounding areas, including the nearby downtown; discussed why the Planning Board should recommend that May Lane be vacated tonight, noting that a number of things have been raised tonight that are favorable to the vacation. First of all, consistent with building a first class residential community, Bruce wants a first class public and private infrastructure, and in that regard May Lane needs to be vacated to facilitate the underground stormwater that needs to transverse May Lane, from the north to the south part of the project; without the vacation, that stormwater, under ECDM guidelines, would be put out into the street; this is a benefit to the City, not just to the project, we want a first class project and first class infrastructure, we don'ty want the stormwater in the street. Secondly, May Lane needs to be vacated to allow Cityside to design, install and maintain the streets, sidewalks, landscaping, at a higher quality level, that is continued maintenance that would be on the back of the developer or the project as opposed to the City. Third, May Lane should be vacated because, as Mr. Freedman will demonstrate in his PowerPoint presentation and discussion, Cityside will dedicate the right-of- way, and grant the additional easements, which exceed the size of the area being vacated; Cityside will be granting back to the City more property than what it will be receiving in the vacation; and the areas around Florida Avenue will be significantly enhanced. This would benefit the public, SSAS, and the City. Also, May Lane needs to be vacated to meet critical timing, schedules, and deadlines for the Cityside project that can't be met if we wait for the zoning text amendment that is delayed; also, the transfer of density that was talked about, the transfer of density is 9 units not 30 units, but we need those 9 units, they are critical to the plans and they are already in ; and finally, You should vacate May Lane because Cityside does not need the 19 dwelling units density that is attributable to the May Lane vacated area, we are proffering to give this back to the City, have the City hold on to that, and to not use that on the project, and that will come up later on as well. Finally, Mr. Merrill wanted to address two points that are very important. Action strategy 2.8 of the Transportation Chapter (staff report, top of p. 4) states: "The City shall not vacate any public rights-ofzay or easements unless they are not in use, provide no public benefit, or are not in the best interest of the City to retain for future use. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 17 of 39 That "or" is not an "and, I and it is any one of those items; it is not in the public interest of the City, and some of you have said that; we will demonstrate that it is not in the best interest of the City to retain the right-of-way for future use, it is better to vacate it and allow us to give you back the easements, we will give you the same rights, and in addition to that you will also get the public benefit. So, I think that we are satisfying two out of the three items here, and we have to satisfy only one of those items because it is an "or. With regard to the public assembly, and I understand some of you are in support and others are not, with the easements that we will be granting back, I do believe they are full public access easements for ingress and egress for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and I believe those do allow for public assembly, for parking and everything else. I cannot imagine the City will say, "Oh, sure, if you are giving us these easements now you can go back and close the street, if you want to." I don'tsee that happening, this is not like the private easements, where they have not granted back public use easements such as in the Renaissance project; these are public easements, that allow the public to have ingress and egress, vehicular-wise as well as pedestrian-wise, sO I don't see that; they have to go through the same process as they would for a public street in an assembly type of thing, but I do believe that those would be allowed. Joel Freedman will go: into more details. Mr. Freedman pointed on an Aerial Photograph the location of the site and its neighbors SSAS, Florida Avenue, Cocoanut Avenue, and the property; used another aerial photograph to show the first stage of the project, where 228 units are proposed; stated that, as Bill Merrill mentioned, there are four reasons for vacating May Lane: first transferring 9 units from the north to the south; explained that the confusion has been that the area calculated for the south portion, that you see there, the numbers that they use did not include the units for the Rosemary Lane Street Vacation; added that that was 19 units, and if you consider that, that's where we came up with the 9 units; pointed out that they need to transfer 9 units; stated that the other issue is stormwater, third is design flexibility, and fourth schedules. Mr. Freedman stated that scheduling is very, very: important while working on this project; said that they have been working with the School of Arts and Sciences (SSAS), and will get into that in a minute; recalled that when they came forward with the Rosemary District Overlay, one of the things that they brought up at that Comprehensive Plan Amendment was the de-designation of May Lane and its ultimate vacation; pointed out that the Planning Board thought they were talking about the zoning text amendment that was coming along as well, and they voluntarily then withdrew their request to de-designate May Lane, because they thought the zoning text amendment was going to be here; pointed out that it was supposed to be done last year; said that when they realized that that was not going to happen, they needed to go forward; explained that the timing of this project is critical, because this is a rental project, not a high end luxury condominium project; added that they then got into the stormwater design issue, and again it is a very expensive issue, they felt it would be better for the area to pipe it under May Lane, to connect their two systems Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 18 of 39 together and then put it on Cocoanut Avenue, down by 10th Street, rather than dump the water out at the First Phase, and having water running down the gutter to 10th Street; added the stormwater issue is a very important one; explained that the reason they are back here again is that the City text amendment did not occur, and then when they got into this they realized there were other reasons they needed to have this vacation. Mr. Freedman continued with a discussion of the transfer of nine units; stated that when they were meeting with the Planning Board the first time, they were thinking how many units they need to do, and came up with 228 units to be the most efficient layout and best plan for this property;said that he knows some people might think, "what is nine units, what does it matter?" but it matters, because they are trying to provide small units, more attainable units than just the typical condominium project; added that the sizes range from 572 sq. ft. to 1,280 sq. ft., that's it, those are the unit sizes; (referred to the graphic in his Power Point presentation), to illustrate, the renderings of the project, depicting elevations facing East on May Lane, the First Phase of the project is on the right side of the picture and the Second Phase is on the left; stated these are four story buildings as they originally told the Planning Board about, landscaping, great interface with the street; pointed out that the parking structure is in the middle, accessed from Florida Avenue, amenities on each side within a court yard, on the right side is a more active pool area, the left side is the more passive area, and he feels Phil has done an outstanding job designing this; added that the parking garage is completely surrounded by the building, you are not going to see it except right at the entrance points, refuse collection is internal to the parking garage, and you are not going to see trash cans all over the road. Mr. Freedman continued with a discussion about the stormwater issue; referring to a graphic in the PowerPoint presentation, pointed out where they are proposing to put the stormwater pipe that goes under May Lane; explained that they can go into a Major Encroachment process, that would take about three months, and three months is not going to work with this project; added they submitted for building permits yesterday (1/13/2015) and they are going to be dealing with the final details of this project, they want to be under construction in April, therefore things are time critical; added every week that goes by the cost of construction is going up; and repeated that this is a rental project, this is not a condominium for purchase project. The design of May Lane is the next topic Mr. Freedman addressed; stated that Phil Smith is here to speak more about that, but as you see we are designing the wide sidewalks, a row of parallel parking, two lanes, and the other side mirrors this, except for the parallel parking; noted the question had arisen as to whether May Lane is improved and stated that it is improved; pointed out that it is only about 20 ft. of pavement right now, no sidewalks, no curb, no gutter, maybe it can be used for pedestrians right now but he would not recommend it; explained what they are proposing a 40 ft. right-of-way; referred to the graphic in the Power Point presentation and said that the buildings are going to be 53 ft. apart instead of 40 ft., because they will be providing sidewalks, parking, the one row of parallel parking, and the travel Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 19 of 39 ways are 11'4" almost a full travel lane; concluded 53 ft. apart instead of 40 ft. apart is a big difference. Mr. Freedman continued with a discussion on Florida Avenue stating they have been working with the Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences (SSAS); recommended if any Planning Board member had not been there, to go, because in the afternoon there are some real challenges with regard to picking up and dropping off the kids, and all that; explained what they are proposing to do: right now Florida Avenue has a 40 ft. right- of-way, 22 ft. of pavement, and when those parents come and queue on one side of the road, the road is blocked from any kind of two way traffic; the developers realize that they are going to have access on Florida Avenue SO they need to do something to improve it, not only for the school, but also for them; pointed out that they are going to dedicate 6ft. of their property, then they are going to increase this with a sidewalk easement, and they are going to provide 30 ft. pavement for cars; said that they are recommending not to stripe a parking area, because of the school, just leave it blank, the parents will be able to completely queue along either side of the street, and still have two ways of traffic to go; added that they are going to do the Florida Avenue improvements during Phase I of their project, along the entire length of their project; stated that they have to put utilities in there, they have to do a lot of work on Florida Avenue, and they will be doing this during the summer months to make sure that the work on the improvements impact the school as little as possible; expressed concern about the time he has left for his presentation, and asked if they could have a couple more minutes that would be great; expressed appreciation for the cooperation that staff has given the applicants, and added that he used to be a planner for a local government, he believes City staff are looking at their comprehensive plan and they need to protect the comprehensive plan and what it says, and it says that we do not want to give up a public right-of-way that is improved without making sure that we get the public benefit back; repeated that the City is losing absolutely nothing and he agrees with Bill Merrill about this public assembly issue; stated that they are going to show that they need to modify the conditions a little bit, as far as the easements are concerned, but they believe that they can provide vehicular access, can provide the public pedestrian access, they will maintain the landscaping, and they are going to completely transform this area as a result of this project; in closing he stated that he will let Bill Merrill explain the changes in the conditions that were in the Planning Board's packet, and there are only three that the developers need to modify slightly, condition numbers 1,5, and 9. Mr. Merrill stated these are self explanatory; stated that condition #1 talked about a 40 ft." wide non-exclusive utility easement, and as Joel Freedman mentioned, the utility easement will be the travel way area, from the engineering perspective that is where it should be, and that would be 26 ft. SO the change in Number 1 would be as follows: 1. A condition preceding the second reading ofthe May Lane Vacation Ordinance, the applicant, at their sole expense, shall provide a 26' 40 wide non-exclusive utility easement for City utilities located within the May Lane right-of zay. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 20 of 39 Mr. Merrill continued saying that condition #5 again mentions the 26 ft. wide vehicular access, that's the travel way for the vehicles, in addition, on either side, as Joel Freeman mentioned, there will be from 742 ft. to 19 ft., on either side, on both sides, for pedestrian access and parking. Proposed revisions for condition #5 are as follows: 5. A condition preceding the second reading oft the May Lane Vacation Ordinance, the applicant, at their sole expense, shall provide a 26' 40 wide non- exclusive easement rpmliepuasirinant vehicular access And 71 12 to 19' wide non-exclusive easement 01 each side for pedestrian access and parking. Mr. Merrill stated that condition #9 had a lot of information about affordable housing for the units that would be coming, instead they are proffering those 19 units back, SO the revised condition states that the 19 dwelling units attributable to the right-of-way vacation shall be retained by the City, in other words, they will not be used for this project, the developers do not have use for them, they do not need them, SO they can be retained by the City, and therefore there would be no reason for the affordable housing language. Proposed revisions for condition #9 are as follows: 9. Acwdiimpreiamte.wastanafleMw, lame-Rightefway-the The 19 dwelling units attributable to gained-frem the right-of-way vacation shall be retained by the City. incempliance-with StmVH9AfZmines-c---ale:-AasNw deafh-S-fReputatay-ilehauagieleen saleefforlease-te-famileswilhinememsefseperenterlessefthe-Area Malmminon-fAMPiawpalnSat Am-ANSAV-Theeppiam-psewaawteansiheinew walepwillemtferepepunth-aseyw-Apyafile Ppakweamtwilwaind-aerS.ma Camyonfemsappowaly-dyAipplamtahain epawfdfwiaiapi--dlwpany or-the-prejeet Mr. Merrill stated that all the other conditions and these changes in these three conditions would be acceptable to the applicants in a motion with approval for the vacation. Mr. Freeman asked Mr. Jensen their civil engineer, to explain, in the 26 ft. utilities area, what utilities are there now on May Lane, and what utilities will be there in the future and in the foreseeable future on May Lane. Mr. Jensen stated that the City's utilities now include a gravity sewer system and a water main; the developers do not need the gravity sewer system for this project in May Lane because they are serving it off of Florida Avenue and Cocoanut Avenue, SO they do not need that service, and it can be abandoned; added that the developers have worked it out with the Utilities Department; explained that the water main there now is 6" and they will upsize it to an 8", pointed out that 26 ft. is plenty of room for an easement for an 8"water main to go: in there, including all the private utilities that Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 21 of 39 would have to go in there; and concluded that the developers have more than adequate room to stay within the 26 ft. Mr. Merrill thanked the Planning Board for the additional time; stated that the conditions that are in the alternative motion are acceptable to the developer, with the changes that he submitted and has passed out to each one of the Planning Board members; repeated that they believe that the public assembly right goes along with this; it will be open to the public, it will look no different than a public street except it is going to look a lot nicer; added the developers are going to maintain it and pay for it; explained that with regard to the comprehensive plan concern, which is the only real concern that he sees out there, he thinks the comprehensive plan provision that is cited in the staff report, strategy 2.8 of the Transportation Chapter, allows exactly what the developers are talking about, it requires that they meet one of the three items in strategy 2.8 of the Transportation Chapter and they meet two of the three; stated that certainly May Lane is in use, they cannot deny that it is in use, but they think that the vacation will provide a tremendous public benefit to this area, in all the different ways that they mentioned; repeated that it is not in the best interests for the City to retain the right-of-way, but instead to go ahead and vacate it; stated that for all the reasons they mentioned earlier, and recapped, the infrastructure issue on the stormwater, the maintenance and installation of the higher level improvements, the transfer of the density which is 9 units, and especially the timing and schedule deadlines that they have to have, because they cannot work this out any other way, there is no other solution, they request that the Planning Board approve this right-of-way vacation; and said they will be happy to answer any questions, or clarify anything if they went too fast. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated that it was a great presentation and a great project; said she loves what the developers are doing for the Rosemary District, what they plan and are proposing, and she wanted to congratulate them on that and for working with the City; stated that she has a major concern, they have tapped into that, and that is the right of public assembly; pointed out that Planner Panica mentioned it in her packet, about the right of general assembly, and she thinks this is very important; added she would disagree with PB: member Gallagher, she thinks it is an essential right we have, when we vacate our streets we give that up, and piece-by-piece we lose it and there is no place to go to hold up your sign and express yourself, and she thinks that is essential; and requested clarification from the City Attorney on that. Attorney Connolly stated that it is a question that would have to be answered by a judge, if there is going to be a disagreement; explained that the property right is described with a metaphor of a bundle of sticks, and clearly there are more sticks in the bundle, when you have a right-of-way than the sticks in the bundle when you have a vehicular pedestrian easement; added that something similar is next door, at the Whole Foods project, where that sidewalk is privately owned, and the developer of that property, the owner, can prohibit people from gathering on that sidewalk; stated that certainly that is a possibility here, Mr. Merrill is arguing that they intend this easement to be as public as it can be; added that he understands this argument, but he Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 22 of 39 is expressing to the Planning Board that he cannot give you a black or white answer, but certainly he can tell the Planning Board that there would be fewer of the sticks that the City would own. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked when the last time this issue was raised in a street vacation. Attorney Connolly responded that it is not frequent; added that it was certainly an issue with Whole Foods. Mr. Freedman stated that he worked on the Whole Foods project and he recalled that they did not grant easements back to the public, that is private property. Attorney Connolly agreed. Mr. Freedman repeated this is private property, and everyone focuses on that; added that was done for a specific reason, and asked the Planning Board to remember back when Whole Foods came, they would not come their current location if they did not control their sidewalks; and explained that they are granting back an easement. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated that the staff report addressed pedestrian confusion in that kind of a situation; described a time when she was downtown, a while ago, and maybe everybody involved was completely wrong, and, probably, Joel (Mr. Freedman) can correct her on that, it was near the Starbucks downtown, and there were some people protesting something, she doesn't remember, on the sidewalk, and the police came and asked them to leave, because they were on private property; continued saying that the people understandably became very angry, they did not understand, they thought they were on public property and they could express themselves, and that started to cause some havoc, nobody hit anybody, but it did cause confusion, that in another situation it could lead to something else; explained that these are the kinds of situations, she thinks, the Planning Board has to clear up, and has to understand what it is doing when it gives up these kinds of rights. Mr. Merrill responded that it is not the situation here; explained that it is the situation in Renaissance, or Whole foods, or several others, but not here. Mr. Freedman stated that in Renaissance, May Lane is a private road and if you go in there, they could throw you out, and it can get confusing because people try to park on May Lane, but you are not supposed to do that, on that May Lane, in Renaissance. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked the applicants if what they are saying is that this would not be an issue on the current proposal. Mr. Merrill responded, "No," because they will be giving back, they will be required by this Ordinance and by the stipulations, they will be giving back these public easements, sO it becomes public, it is a public street it just is not public right-of-way, and it is a public travel way. Mr. Jensen said it is for public use, and it will not change. PB: member Ahearn-Koch said it is still a little blurry on the public assembly portion of this. Mr. Merrill explained that he thinks the reason is because these other areas did not give the public easement back, like Joel mentioned, the Whole Foods or the Renaissance, sO that's the confusion, but it really should not cloud the issue here, they are giving back those public easements here, in a larger area that what is currently existing, it is 40 ft. now and they are going to 53 ft., SO it really should not be an issue. PB member Ahearn-Koch said that she thinks this is wonderful, the developers have made incredible efforts in this project, it is just this is one of the things that concerns Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 23 of 39 her. Mr. Merrill responded he hoped they had clarified it. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that things are still blurry on the general assembly. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that it is like Attorney Connolly said, the only way this is going to be cleared up is if there is a challenge and goes to court; Attorney Connolly repeated that he could not give a black and white answer. Mr. Freedman stated that they have no intention of stopping them, if anyone wants to be protesting they are going to be protesting. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she didn't think she would get any more clarification, anyway, just a couple more questions; pointed out that there were some issues raised by Planning staff about regulating parking, some questions were asked about parking at night; and asked will this situation make it difficult for the City to regulate parking. Mr. Merrill responded that they do not think so. Mr. Freedman stated that they will enter into an agreement with the City's Parking Division or Department, added that he has already met with Mr. Lyons, and all they have to do is to get in an agreement with them and the City's Parking Division will enforce it; and repeated that the confusion has been generated by the project across the street, where all these complaints are happening about parking, but the parking people cannot enforce it there, because the condominiums do not want to enter into an agreement. PB: member Ahearn-Koch inquired about condition #9 and the applicants' revisions there; asked for clarification about what the applicants mean about the 19 units, and what is going to happen. Mr. Merrill responded that there is a certain square footage, 11,200 sq. ft. of property that May Lane occupies; explained that when that is vacated, normally, it goes to the two abutting properties, that means, that that property, just like in Rosemary Lane vacation, that 11,200 sq. ft. goes to the benefit the adjacent properties, pointed out that those 11,200 sq. ft. would calculate to 19 dwelling units of additional density that the developers would be getting for this project, and they are forfeiting that; stated that was an issue the staff raised, the developers are giving it back, they do not want it, and they do not need it. Mr. Freedman stated that was done before in the Farm and Garden site when they first went through, and vacated the alley, which was a public alley, it was improved, the whole bit; added the commission at that time said that they would vacate the alley but did not want to give the owner the density, they proffered the density, they did not want the density; and repeated that it has been done before, where the developers did not take the density. Mr. Merrill clarified what he is saying in the proposed revised language for condition #9; stated that what he means is that those 19 units attributable to the right-of-way, that 11,200 sq. ft., shall be retained by the City, SO those will be kept by the City. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if they decided to give the units back as opposed to providing affordable housing. Mr. Merrill responded that they did not want to deal with someone saying that they got extra 19 units, SO something should be extracted from that. Mr. Freedman said that the affordable housing issue is.. ; emphasized that the applicants are real pioneers here, this is a big step, and this has to be market rate apartments, from financing to who is going to live there, everything like that, sO to mix affordable units through a covenant for 30 years, and all that, again, they have to deal Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 24 of 39 with banks, these people don't understand this kind of stuff, they don't want to get involved with a project, or finance it, when there are stormwater pipes going under public rights-of-way, or when 30 units have to be affordable for 30 years based on the median income, and all that; added he can't even understand it, let alone a banker; and stated, this is a market rate apartment project, it has to be or otherwise it is not going to work. Citizen Testimony: David Jennings, SSAS Board member, representing the Board of SSAS. Mr. Jennings, introduced himself for the record, and explained that he is representing the Board of SSAS, stated this was a conversation he thought would be occurring a year ago, when the original proposal had the vacation of May Lane, and they were concerned that there would be some kind of loss, or what the bundle of sticks might look like, but they never got into any of those conversations because the vacation request was pulled. They understood that it was pulled because staff was working on the text amendments however were advised by Ryan Chapdelain, as early as October or November, that the process was moving slowly, but also by the developer that the process was moving slowly, SO they were notified back in November that the developer was going to put the vacation of May Lane back on the agenda; the developers came to the SSAS Board and presented several times now, and they presented in depth to the Board at their December meeting; the Board is an 11-person body focused on the education of the students at SSAS, come from a pretty diverse professional background, are lay people when it comes to some of the technicalities, but understand the timeline the developers are trying to achieve; are supportive of the timeline they try to achieve; the Board understands they want to do some things this summer, which if they don't get done this summer will get done next fall, noted that would be incredibly disruptive to the traffic flow; and if the schedule holds, they believe it will be less impactful when the school starts back up again in the fall; they have had many discussions about traffic flow and what Florida Avenue could look like, which is the most important street for them. As an organization they are accepting the fact that May Lane is probably not going to be part of their future as far as queuing parent pick up and drop off goes. In short, this evening, there is an SSAS Board meeting going on as we talk, and I was excused early to come here. This evening, the Board of Directors of SSAS, in typical prudent fashion, unanimously passed a motion that we have no objection for the request for vacation of May Lane given the easements the developers are offering back to the City. Staff Rebuttal: Planner Panica pointed out that earlier she had stated that if May Lane were vacated they would have to abide by the development standards for the street, and added she was incorrect; said that there would not be any development standards because it would not be a street; added that the proffer of not using the density mentioned by the applicants earlier had not been communicated to staff, and of course that would ease staff's s condition number 9. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 25 of 39 Senior Planner Courtney Mendez appeared and stated she wanted to clarify some comments made by the applicants in their presentation; stated the first one was about stormwater, it sounded like if the applicants do not get this vacation the stormwater is going to run down on the street, and obviously that is not the case; pointed out that there are requirements for stormwater treatment and attenuation when there are changes to the peak flow, sO it is not the case where you would have a gutter overflowing with stormwater because there is no connecting pipe; added that she knows there are other benefits for having that contained in a combined system, and she just does not want the impression out there that stormwater will be a free for all, because it just doesn'thappen that way. Senior Planner Mendez continued with discussing the right-of-way improvements; stated that we all know what May Lane looks like today, but if the right-of-way were not vacated, the developers would still be making substantial improvements to May Lane; explained that the improvements may be in two phases, but when you come in the City for a project the City requires street improvements; pointed out that even without the vacation of the right-of-way, the developers would be bringing May Lane up to, at least, a minimum EDCM adopted cross section, and they could go above and beyond that, even as a public right-of-way; added that is the maintenance agreement staff spoke to, stating she just wanted to comment on that. The last item Senior Planner Mendez addressed is that the developers have not started their traffic study process yet; pointed out that they need to get that determination and get the traffic study done; added once that is done, there may be the possibility that the traffic study calls for additional improvements that they would have to make, such as additional lanes that could be required regardless of the condition. Senior Planner Mendez requested information regarding the dwelling units; stated that there were some changes made at the table today; and said that in a prior meeting the applicants were pretty determined that they wanted those 19 units, sO that is a change, it is different than what staff analyzed in the staff report. Senior Planner Mendez also requested additional information about the change of the easement from 40 ft. to 26 ft.; stated that if the Planning Board decides to recommend the May Lane vacation with that change, staff had some concerns; added staff would need to go back to Utilities, to make sure that 26 ft. is appropriate for their future right-of-way needs; explained that in many cases those facilities are not under the travel way, some could be under the sidewalk; stated it may be sufficient for the 6" water main that the applicants want to replace, but staff has to make sure there aren'tany other larger system improvements that may have an additional storm water line, other than the one that's there today, or something else that the Utilities Department may feel that 26 ft. would be too confined. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that the applicants had mentioned that if the stormwater was piped and not going to be flowing down the street, the way around it was going to take an extra three months, is that correct. Senior Planner Mendez stated that if they did it as a Major Encroachment, that is about how long the process Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 26 of 39 takes; added that they are going into a traffic study that is two months in itself; and said that she knows the applicants are pushing their time line as close as possible, but they still have steps in the process regardless, that are going to take a couple of months. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked the City's take on condition #9. Senior Planner Mendez repeated that this is something staff just heard today; explained that previously the developers wanted those 19 units; added that really, on the affordable housing issue, staff was trying to achieve some balance not using the full transfer; added 19 units is certainly significantly less than the number of affordable units that would be required, if staff were to use the code today; pointed out that on the other side of it, if the text amendment had gone forward, that would be really the time the Commission would decide if they felt the rational nexus was still valid, and if they wanted to continue that; and noted that obviously the Commission did not have the opportunity to have that conversation yet. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked staff about the site plan that was mentioned earlier. Planner Panica stated that she had mentioned that because in downtown the site plan is not required. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if the applicants had submitted something yesterday [1/13/2015). Planner Panica stated they submitted a building permit. PB member Ahearn-Koch explained that she asked because it is one of the points, which is, being proposed with something, and up to this point there was nothing like a site plan, something concrete. Senior Planner Mendez responded that is the first thing after the preliminary concept plans. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked if there was someone present from Engineering; noted that in the staff packet it was mentioned that both the Planning staff and the Engineering staff recommended.. : asked if Senior Planner Mendez could elaborate on what the Engineering staff recommended. City Engineer DavisShaw stated that Planner Panica covered that; added that Planning and Engineering worked together on the points that were evaluated in the staff report, such as the use of the public space, and the fact that there is existing traffic and pedestrian activity there; added that the points Planner Panica laid out in the staff report were the concerns that engineering expressed, and the DRC. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that she was under the impression that it was also the regulations of traffic, and parking, and all those other issues, and asked if City Engineer DavisShaw felt comfortable with the conditions. City Engineer DavisShaw stated the there were a few areas where they had trouble with parking in locations where there has been a vacation, an easement was granted back, and, sometimes, there is an understanding of parking requirements; added that while there can be an agreement right now for parking management, unless it is spelled out that parking management would be controlled more by the parking manager, if the developers or owners decided to change that, and the City still had parking management, the City would have lost the ability to say "This should be a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 27 of 39 regulated area," or "This should be not a time-restricted area. M City Engineer DavisShaw stated that in the agreements the City needs to make sure what type of uses the pedestrian areas have, such as they are free and clear not just for access, but they are unimpeded, without trees and planters, and that there is a sufficient open area for pedestrian access. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman apologized for rushing through earlier while talking about the stormwater; clarified that he did not mean to indicate that it would flow free in the street; explained that what he meant to say was that if the stormwater pipes do not go under May Lane the water will be collected and treated in a vault, and then it would discharge, after treatment, and it would go into the gutter. Mr. Jensen stated that what Joel was saying was correct; added that if in fact Cityside did not treat and attenuate water, he would have a problem, he would not be able to sign and seal the drawings; explained that what the applicants are going to do is collect the water, attenuate it, treat it sO that the post-condition discharge rates meet the pre- condition discharge rates; noted that what Joel referred to is that the point of discharge would be taking the water back out to Cocoanut Avenue, and then along the gutter line SO that water would flow out to Cocoanut Avenue, down the road to 10th Street; pointed out that the amount of water that is in the pre-development stage today is roughly two to three cubic feet per second going down the gutter; explained that what is being designed is taking that water into a piping system that would cross from the north side across May Lane to the south side and into a piping system within our sites, and then connect it to the City's system; concluded that this is a better design without taking all that water down the gutter. Mr. Freedman stated that he is not concerned about the traffic study, because he has reviewed the former traffic study that was done for the previous project on this site that was approved; refreshed everyone's memory about that project noting that it had 397 residential units and 87,000 sq. ft. of retail, and no traffic improvements were required in the traffic study; stated he is comfortable that the applicants are going to be able to get through the traffic study process relatively easy, probably in about six to seven weeks maximum, maybe sooner if they get to use the old study. Mr. Freedman continued stating the things the applicants proffered today are included in the building permit application, and the site plan; added that they show all the things that they have talked about, the sidewalk widths, Florida Avenue improvements, all those things are reflected in the plan, SO the Planning Board can be assured that what the applicants are saying are going is what is going to be happening. Mr. Jensen stated that what was described earlier about Florida Avenue is that when they are finished with it there will be 30ft width of asphalt, that is going to accommodate the queuing of parents, we do not have that right now; stated that as he got involved with the Cityside development team he said they have to do this or they are going to have a problem. The development team agreed it makes sense; added that as far as the easement for the utilities is concerned, the typical City utility easement is 20 ft. wide, the applicants are offering 26 ft., it makes sense for edge-of-tarmac to edge- Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 28 of 39 of-tarmac; added that they are finding that in most utility systems, and the Utilities Department has come full circle in agreeing with him; explained it doesn't make sense to put utility systems within sidewalks, because if there is a problem, it is sO much more costly to tear up a sidewalk than it is to work within the pavement, SO the utilities Cityside is putting in, they will put them within the pavement; repeated that the gravity sewer system is not needed; pointed out the City's EDCM requires parallel parking, that changes from one side of the street to the other; explained that what happens then, cars weave through May Lane, which is not necessarily the safe thing to do when we are building this type of project; stated that everything that is near US 41 and May Lane that has been vacated, and even the SSAS portion of May Lane does not meet the City's requirements for May Lane; the applicants are doing a better enhancement, 40 ft. right-of-way, and basically we have 53 ft. public usage access, which includes parking, etc. Mr. Freedman noted that in the comments City staff did not require dedication of the right-of-way for May Lane. The 40 ft. right-of-way was deemed acceptable by the Engineering Department in their comments. Mr. Jensen stated that he thinks they will end up with a far better cross section when they are done. Mr. Freedman said they are going to have parking management noting one of the staff conditions is that that the applicants will meet the primary street design standards. Mr. Merrill noted it was staff condition #8. PB member Gallagher said in the long term, the applicant takes possession of the property, begins paying taxes on it, assumes responsibility for maintaining it, assuming the Capital Improvements Program will cycle quickly in the City and May Lane will stay in the shape is has for the last several decades; added, let's go to the down side, what happens if the street went into pot holes and weeds, how does that work; and asked how the City enforces the maintenance of the easement. Mr. Merrill responded that is enforced through the stipulations of the vacation. Attorney Connolly stated that it is addressed in condition #7, which is calling for an Easement Agreement that, among other things, requires the applicant to maintain the May Lane easement area to standards that meet or exceed those of the City; explained that if the applicants were to violate that, the City would be able to sue the applicant in Circuit Court. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. PB member Siegel made the following motion and PB member Gallagher seconded the motion: I move to find the petition [Street Vacation 15-SV-04] consistent with the applicable section of the Zoning Code and recommend approval to the City Commission subject to the conditions set forth, as amended under paragraphs 1, 5 and 9, sections 1 through 11. 1. A condition preceding the second reading of the May Lane Vacation Ordinance, the applicant, at their sole expense, shall provide a 26j f. ide non-exclusive utility easement for City utilities locate within the May Lane right-of-way. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 29 of 39 2. A condition preceding the second reading oft the May Lane Vacation Ordinance, the applicant at their sole expense, shall provide a utility easement for the Verizon facilities located within the May Lane right-of-vay. 3. A condition preceding the second reading ofthe May Lane Vacation Ordinance, the applicant, at their sole expense, shall provide a utility easement for the Florida Power and Light facilities located within the May Lane right-of-way. 4. A condition preceding the second reading ofthe May Lane vacation Ordinance, the applicant, at their sole expense, shall provide a utility easement for the Comcast Facilities located within the May Lane right-of way. 5. A condition preceding the second reading ofthe May Lane vacation Ordinance, the applicant, at their sole expense, shall provide a 26f. wide non-exclusive easement for vehicular access and 74f. to 19 f. wide non-exclusive easement on each side for pedestrian access and parking. 6. A condition precedent to the efective date ofthe vacation of the May Lane right-of way, the applicant, at their sole expense, will need to disconnect the City's sanitary sezver system located within the subject right-of-way from the City's sewer system located in Cocoanut Avenue and provide the sevver system proposed for replacement to suit the future development. 7. A condition precedent to the effective date oft the vacation ofthe May Lane right-of way, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement where as the applicant maintains the May Lane easement area to standards that will meet or exceed those set by the utility accommodation manual and City Codes by ensuring the utility, vehicle and pedestrian zones are not restricted by the development improvement. The development shall capture, attenuate and treat the stormwater runoff from the easement area prior to discharging into the public system. 8. Following vacation of the May Lane right-of-way, the building with frontage along the vacated May Lane right-of-zay shall remain subject to the Building Design Standards in the Downtown Zone Districts found in Table VI-1004 of the Zoning Code. The building permit shall show compliance with all the applicable design standards of Table VI-1004 and any other requirements applicable to primary streets. For purposes ofs setbacks, measurement shall in this case be taken from the edge of the easement area. 9. The 19 dwelling units attributable to the right-of-way vacation shall be retained by the City. 10. A condition precedent to the effective date of the vacation ofthe May Lane right-of- way, the applicant shall, by December 31, 2017, apply for a site plan or building permit for a residential development associated with implementing the Rosemary Residential Overlay District on the consolidated property abutting the May Lane right-of-way on the north and south thereof. As a further condition precedent to the effective date ofsaid vacation, the applicant covenants to obtain from the City the issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction for said residential development within four years of the approval ofthe street vacation ordinance on second reading. The City shall record a Notice of Effective Date of Street Vacation in the Official Records of Sarasota County at such time as said building permit has been issued an the requirements ofall Conditions have been met. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the efective date oft the street vacation shall be rescinded and May Lane shall revert to the City of Sarasota as public right-of-way in the event that a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 30 of 39 Certificate of Occupancy is not obtained within 24 months of the date ofissuance of the first Building Permit for said residential development. 11. Upon completion ofthe above conditions, the City will record a Notice of Effective Date of Street Vacation in the Official Records of Sarasota Count. Alternatively, failure to meet these conditions shall render the vacation approval void and a Notice ofFailure of Street Vacation shall be recorded in the Public Records of Sarasota County. PB: member Siegel stated that PB member Gallagher pretty much put things into the proper perspective and he wanted to comment on that a little bit later; stated that what is important to him is that this particular proceeding is structured, if you take into account the provisions under Section IV. 1306, and with regard to part of the discussion; read the following excerpt from the Executive Summary: 1 As part of the vacation, the applicant would be required to grant an easement back to the City to maintain access for vehicles and pedestrians, accommodate existing utilities, and facilitate future public and private utility needs.. and noted that clearly the applicant has satisfied all of the conditions under Section IV.1306, he believes the City loses nothing, and really, in his view, this comes down to is, and this is what PB member Gallagher was emphasizing, there is competing interests here as it relates to the public interests; added that staff made the case as to the fact that they didn't feel that those interests were satisfied, and the applicant clearly made their case in arguing that the public benefits from this type of project, in every area that staff commented on, and that they talked and put before us; added, you balance these respective interests and there is a residual interest in this proceeding, and that residual interest, for those of us who have worked in areas like this, that is what kind of a message we would be sending to other developers who want to get involved in the Rosemary District; pointed out that the City had been talking about the Rosemary District from the first day he came to Sarasota, and this is, without a doubt, the most excitement, the most interest he had seen; added that the one thing that he feels is important when we balance these interests is that we [City/Planning Board] don't get these applicants in a position where we are telling them "you could have done this," or "you can do it this way," said, iti is what it is; pointed out that he thinks this project is going to be a tremendous benefit overall, and it will encourage other developers to move quickly; stated that he loves the point the developers are making, "we want to move forward on this as soon as possible" and concluded that it is for these reasons that he is supporting this petition in every way, shape, and form. PB member Gallagher stated that these easement vacations, we had two of them tonight, they are about public interest, it seems with all these conditions in every way, shape, and manner the public interest is being served, sO much SO, that makes you look at it and say, man, we ought to find more developers willing to take on public streets, take the burden off the City, and pay for them, and pay taxes on them, and everything else, and grant everything back that is necessary; added he is at loss to find one piece of public interest that is not being served by the way this thing ultimately came down, SO he is supporting it. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 31 of 39 PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that she was very conflicted coming into this, and the very important thing for her, it was not very clear cut for her as it was for the other Planning Board members, she was very conflicted by the general assembly issue, and when staff gives that warning and recommends denial, she takes that at great weight, and she came in here completely conflicted, either way; stated her main concern, a lot of her main concerns were the action strategy; she had to disagree with others, and agree with staff, she put a lot of weight on that, she is not sure of the public benefit, also, engineering and planning staff don't recommend it, those are big, the general assembly issue, the risk of confusion; stated that she is less concerned about that now, she thinks the applicant has done an amazing job with this project, with this property, with all of the little issues that are involved with utilities, stormwater, with all that stuff; pointed out this is such a complicated application, and it is not as clear cut for her as it is for others; added she believes that staff did an amazing job and the applicant as well, and she thinks that the applicant has just really proven their willingness to work with the City, and to uphold the value of what the public is giving up, and she really hopes they hold to that, and, should someone come out there with their signs that say "I love Sarasota," or "Ilove chickens," they take that to heart and allow that to happen; noted that she is, shockingly to herself, she is going to support this application; stated that she also commended the fact that the applicant worked with SSAS, which was a huge concern to her, and she thinks they went above and beyond on that. So, again, shockingly, she is going to support this. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay stated that he supports the application, the only comment to add is that he thinks this whole argument that the staff came up with, that we are going to protect places of public assembly, is utterly ridiculous; stated that as one who has worked all his life defending the public and the first amendment, often at considerable personal and financial risk, he thinks it is ridiculous to say you take this one little stretch possibly, and of course the applicants said they are giving it back, when there is a public sidewalk within one hundred feet in all directions; stated that it is just a ridiculous thing; pointed out that if someone wants to find a place to protest fine, they want to find a place to assemble and play marbles, there are no shortage of places like that around; added if they want to ride their skateboards, we are not doing what we are doing on the modern college campuses, where we take a square mile and put a ten foot square in the middle of this, and say there you can have free speech; recalled that he has never seen that raised on any other application and asked why wouldn't that apply, if that's the theory, to the 10 ft. alley that the Planning Board talked about earlier this evening? PB Vice-Chair Lindsay concluded that he thinks that, on this one in particular, staff was stretching to find a reason to recommend a negative on the application, and it is a pretty long stretch in his view. PB Chair Svekis stated that he opposed vacating May Lane when they were discussing RROD, and that to some degree he was as conflicted as PB member Ahearn-Koch was when he came into this, but he thinks the applicant has done an incredible job here, and he is going to support it too. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 32 of 39 The motion passed unanimously with the amendments to the conditions presented by the applicant. THE PLANNING BOARD WAS IN RECESS 8:00 PM TO 8:06 PM C. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearings 1. UPS Store Sign Adjustment (242 Washington Blvd): Adjustment Application No. 15-ADP-02 is a request for adjustments from Section II-201, Sign Related Definitions: (12) Monument Sign and Section VII-110(5)(F) of the Zoning Code (2002 Edition) for property located in the Downtown Edge (DTE) zone district with a street address of 242S. Washington Boulevard. An adjustment is requested to allow a monument sign on a primary street and to allow the height of the sign structure to exceed its width. (COURTNEY MENDEZ, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER) Attorney Connolly stated that there are no applications for Affected Person status, SO the applicant and staff will make presentations. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Javier Suarez, , Studio Suarez, representing the owner Dr. Mark Kauffman, Washington-Adams Properties LLC: appeared. Mr. Suarez introduced himself and Dr. Kauffman, and stated that they are requesting two adjustments to the downtown code to be able to put a monument sign at the UPS store site; explained that the UPS store had a very large sign, they are developing the property that is to the north of the UPS store site, in a project for Dr. Kauffman who owns both parts of the site (the north and the south site where the UPS store is), and in that process they tore down the UPS store's pylon sign because it is non-conforming: stated that at the time they got a stipulation from City staff that they would have to replace it with a conforming sign, or perhaps go for an adjustment, which is what they have chosen and why they are before the Planning Board this evening; added that what has happened is that with the construction of the building to the north, unfortunately, the line of site especially for the traffic flowing from the north, impedes the visibility and the business exposure of the UPS: store; pointed out that, they are requesting a couple of adjustments that would allow for a small monument sign, that would help the visibility especially coming from the north; stated that monument signs are not allowed on a primary street, which is one of the adjustments we are requesting; added that the second adjustment relates to the design of the sign; explained that by definition, monument signs are to be wider than taller, sO in this case they believe that the element of this building (which meets the standards of the downtown code) is really blocking the business exposure and view of the UPS store, and for that reason they were requesting the monument sign; added that they believe they meet all the criteria for the approval of the adjustment, and staff recommended approval with two conditions; the conditions are acceptable to Dr. Kauffman; said that they believe this improves the quality of visibility; the monument sign, which is allowed to be up to 10 ft., in this case it is only 5ft. 61 in, and it is only 2 ft. wide; the second adjustment is to allow for the sign to be taller than wider, because by definition a monument sign is wider than taller, but they believe a wider sign on this site would be more of an obstruction and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 33 of 39 more of a visual impact; in conclusion he stated that they tried to put a very simple sign, but at least it would denote that the UPS store is still there, and it is in business, and that's] pretty much all they have right now. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay asked if they are going to retain the sign that is on the carport area of the store. Mr. Suarez responded "Yes," and added that that sign, because it is totally parallel to the street, really is not seen until you are right on top of it, and by the time you see that, you are past the location; explained that it is the applicant's fear that, since there is a big curb cut there, that people driving in the middle lane see the sign too late creating a safety issue there if they immediately try to cut across to drive in the curb cut to enter the facility; and pointed out that if people see it from a distance it would be much easier to enter into the facility. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez introduced herself for the record; stated that the applicant did a good job describing what they are proposing, the two adjustments they are seeking, and the reasoning for it, SO she will elaborate on a few other points, maybe going back a little bit to the intent of the downtown code; she apologized for an error in the staff report on page 4, (end of 3rd line) it should say Section VI-1004(2), which states that "Compliance is intended to occur over time, as redevelopment and nez development occur;" added that there is redevelopment on that site, it is going up today, but in the interim iti is creating an issue for the existing UPS store and their visibility; pointed out that the way staff looked at this request, and signage in general, staff thinks this is a temporary solution to the midterm until the additional portion of the project is redeveloped; she thinks in the staff report she may have used the term "restrained under design," stated that she thinks the applicants, although they are requesting the sign where it normally would be allowed, in designing the sign, they were cognizant of the size, the placement, the height and site to provide a sign that is what they need, to limit the signage for advertising and commerce, without pushing it to the absolute limit of what maybe allowed for a monument sign on a primary street; added that she will just note the two sections that they are requesting for the adjustments, the first one is relating to Section VII-110 (5) (f) stating that monument ground signs should be located on primary rather than secondary streets, and the other one is the definition of monument sign, under Section II-20, to allow that sign to actually be narrower at width than it is in height; pointed out that in this case, it is a relatively small sign, if it were larger it would be out of scale; said that, as the applicant pointed out, it would be outside the visibility triangle and would provide some additional obstruction, more than what they have proposed; explained that staff have gone through the criteria for adjustments in Section IV Division 19 and responded to each of those; stated the adjustment will equal or better the purpose of the regulations to be adjusted, spoke to how the proposal is responding to existing conditions on this site, that are different from a building that would normally be constructed to Code today, and how the applicants are seeking to address that challenge; added that it doesn't detract from the visibility, and there she uses the term "restraint in the design, it is not an enormous sign that's going to be a blight at the sight of the neighborhood; concluded that it is Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 34 of 39 relatively small in height and small in size sign, and meets the applicant' S needs until the property redevelops. PB member Ahearn-Koch asked how far into the site (she could not tell by the little map) the sign was and what the relationship to the building being constructed was. Senior Planner Mendez responded that it would be parallel to that, the existing building is set very close to, within 5 ft. of, the property line, SO the sign they are proposing is basically placed adjacent to the property line, at the back edge of the sidewalk. PB member Ahearn-Koch, referring to the llustrations on Sheet A-1 in the packet, pointed to the rendered views of the sign, asked if one is coming from the right to the left, would that person have to go around the sign, or is there free passage. Senior Planner Mendez responded that it is behind the sidewalk. PB member Ahearn- Koch stated that currently, on the front face of the building it does say the "United Parcel Service," - she does not have the exact verbiage, and asked if this sign will take the place of any other sign, if there could be more banner or window signage on the left or on the right side. Senior Planner Mendez stated that they could still have additional wall signage, she said that in the report somewhere. PB member Ahearn- Koch stated it is on page 4 of the staff report and it states "placement of additional wall, wuindow or other signage, H SO this sign does not preclude that, it is not instead of. Senior Planner Mendez responded, "No, it does not replace it;" pointed out that the issue with the additional wall signage is the same as the applicants explained, where it is on the canopy that's set back, far enough from the street, but it wouldn't be visible until you are pretty much right there on top of it. PB member Ahearn-Koch, referring to page 5 of the staff report, stated in the middle of the first paragraph you say, 1 The location ofa ground mounted sign on the property provides the applicant a mid-term solution.. - so, just to be clear, this is considered temporary. Senior Planner Mendez agreed adding that it may be five to ten years, there are no immediate plans for redevelopment in that area; and added that staff tried to capture that in the first condition, which is stating that upon redevelopment or expansion of the building, which would bring it out to the street, then this sign would go away. PB member Gallagher stated that he did not realize the monument sign was wider than it is tall, and there is another name for a sign that it is taller than it is wide, the pylon sign. Can you think of any reason, other than oversight, why a pylon sign would not be allowed on a secondary street? Senior Planner Mendez answered that she thinks it was a design choice. A monument sign has a more substantial base that is almost architecturally designed to match the building and is more appropriate than a post sign with a big box on top. PB Chair Svekis asked if Senior Planner Mendez was aware of any plans to make the building conforming, any timeframe. Senior Planner Mendez stated "No," added that the plans they brought forward for the northern portion just dealt with that, and suggested that Dr. Kauffman would be the person to ask for any long term plans. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 35 of 39 PB member Ahearn-Koch had a question for the applicant. Dr. Kauffman explained that when he purchased this building the existing space was vacant, and there was an old pylon sign there, and the rest of the property was empty dirt; added that the tenant wanted this location, he is a good tenant, he put a lot of money into the property to make it for his purpose, and there was a pylon sign; Dr. Kauffman stated he plans to redevelop and the pylon sign cannot stay there, the tenant agreed to that, that is on the lease; said that was five years ago, because of the economy he did not redevelop anything, and then when he developed, he had a tenant, this is a build-to- suit building, he needed a certain square footage, which meant bringing the building forward to put the parking in the rear; added that he said to the tenant that he will move the pylon sign to another location on the site, but he was disallowed that by planning; noted that he is a very good tenant, works hard, and Dr. Kauffman took it upon himself; said, he told him he will try to get him some signage, assumed all the expenses of going through this process, and those for putting the sign upj just to help with his tenant's business. Dr. Kauffman stated that as far as future plans for the building are concerned, if you look at the plans for the current development you will see that it is missing a piece; added when this business leaves this location, Dr. Kauffman will probably tear it down and continue the new building along to the south. PB Chair Svekis asked for clarification "When the business leaves there, is that what you just said?" Dr. Kauffman explained that he means if the tenant leaves, right now he has a lease, he is doing well and he wants to stay, sO, Dr. Kauffman will not push him out, as Iong as he is there and doing a good business, and he is happy, he will leave it alone; added that when the building becomes vacant, it would be more prudent to remove the building, it is time to remove it, and we will complete the south end of this project; and concluded that he thinks the Planning Board said something about a timeline, but he does not know what that time line would be; and clarified he meant that it is his intent to do that, and when that happens, the sign will vanish. Mr. Suarez, added that at that point they would meet all the criteria of the downtown code for signage for the new building. PB member Ahearn-Koch pointed out that there is always a concern, downtown, about the proliferation of signage; said that her concern is, if we would do this, then there are the two banners on the top; added that she does not think that the Planning Board can preclude or tell the applicant not to do that, or make him trade; and she was wondering if there was the intention of adding any more signage, or this would be it. Dr. Kauffman responded that there is not any intention to add anymore signage. Mr. Suarez added that any signage on the building is blocked by the building they are building to the north, which is precisely why they need to do the small monument sign; noted that they have treated the new sign in a very elegant way, tried to keep it small, and pointed out it only has the UPS logo; stated that, fortunately, the UPS logo is very well recognized, and the applicants felt that having just the logo on the sign is enough; pointed it out that the applicants tried, because they agree with the statement of non-proliferation of signs, sO they tried to do their sign in a way that is elegant and in scale, SO it is consistent with what the City is trying to create in the downtown core. There were no affected citizens. PB Chair Svekis closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 36 of 39 PB member Ahearn-Koch made the following a motion and seconded by PB member Siegel: Adopt a motion to find Adjustment 15-ADP-02 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment, subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon redevelopment or expansion of the existing non-conforming portion of the structure, the monument ground sign approved herein shall be removed and replaced with signage conforming to the Zoning Code in place at time ofconstruction. 2. The issuance oft this development permit by the City ofSarasota does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from any state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City of Sarasota for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in violations of state or federal law. AIl other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated for her the monument sign is elegant, they could have proposed something that would not be sO elegant but they did not, the logo speaks by itself and she thinks it helps identify the store; she added she would worry that if the Planning Board does not grant this, the business owner would start putting big banners on the top or the sides, and that is exactly what the City does not want; she concluded that she thinks this is more elegant than the alternative, and meets the code standards better than the alternative. PB: member Siegel stated it's a great plan, "UPS," people recognize it, it's a great shop. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay had no comment. PB member Gallagher stated that he thinks this is an elegant solution, and it is better than a full size monument sign; pointed out that the whole Downtown Code is about walkability, planting a 10: ft. wide sign there, as opposed to this thing that's very narrow, and he thought this was a much better solution; and concluded that he supports the motion. PB Chair Svekis stated that he had an issue with it; stated that first of all, the vast pylon sign was grandfathered in, and he always hoped that when the site got redeveloped the sign would go away, and then it would be conforming; added that now, it seems that we are going from one grandfathered non-conforming sign to another non-conforming sign, with no end-point really, we do not know ifi it is going to be there forever; pointed out that now we will have a monument sign, or some other definition, that is not allowed on a primary street; and concluded that he has a problem with that and he just cannot support it. PB member Gallagher stated that he thinks that there is a staged improvement; explained that he thinks this is far better than that big tall sign; noted that this is different, although they fall within the same definition category; said that it seems that the Code is missing something that would allow something like the proposed sign; pointed out that even though this is classified as a primary street, this is a street in transition; explained that if it is a primary street it is not a first rate primary street at Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 37 of 39 this point; added that, as we transition there, he thinks there is need for some flexibility, to the point where both the public right-of-way is speaking like a primary street and the buildings are speaking like a primary street; noted that the area is not there yet; and concluded that the proposed sign is a good solution for this transition time. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay added that it has always been a principal, too, we would allow some flexibility as long as someone was reducing the non-conformity, and they are reducing the amount of non-conformity substantially in going from something that is 25 ft. to 30: ft. tall, and probably 3 ft. to5 ft., or something ridiculous like that, to a much smaller sign, and much less visual and physical impact on the area. On that basis, it is a substantial reduction of the non-conformity. The motion passed 4/1 with PB Chair Svekis voting no. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen's input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 10, 2014 PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated that she has a handful of corrections, but, prior to reading them, she wanted to say that the minutes are comprehensive, well written, they capture the essence of everything that the Planning Board had in their meeting, and she would like to say "Thank you" to Karen because she does a phenomenal job of this, and that she is just really happy with the quality of the minutes. General Manager Smith stated that they have a transcriptionist who does the minutes, Karen does not have the time to sit there and complete the minutes as the Planning Board would like them, SO staff sends that out; added that Karen is the one who coordinates with the individual and reviews the minutes. PB member Ahearn-Koch commented, "Greatjob" with the individual, and Karen, and staff; she thinks they are very valuable, comprehensive, and accurate, SO she wanted to compliment the staff on that; and added that she wanted to mention a few little things that she noticed. Page3, last paragraph, second to the last line correct to read as follows: - General Manager Smith explained that he had spoken to County City Attorney Fournier... Page 5, last paragraph, 4th line down, I Land land Use Map.. Page 9,3rd paragraph down, second line, I the pre's pros and een's- cons were.. Page 18, 1st paragraph, 20th line, 1 .stated Benderson is willing to work with the City... Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 38 of 39 Page 18, last paragraph, second to last line, Mr-Fineher-Fineherg. . " Page 19, last paragraph, 4th to last line, "Tineferg"" "Fineberg." Page 19,4th paragraph, 5th line, a denial and if we accept that we will be required to... Page 20, 23rd line, 1 pointed out that there big money needs to be paid here if you were to develop (improve) it Page 21, 17th line, u contract without penalty, then you really do not have a centaetcontract Page 25, first line, ".. recorded by Johnny Ioni Mitchell in... Page 26, 4th line, # My name is Rene Rene' Page 30, 27th line, 1 Their vision en of Sarasota... 1 Page 30, 32nd line, 1 ..analogy to then-the popular / Page 31, 2nd paragraph,6th line, H : .space that we have. I think is it has been.. I Page 34, 1st paragraph, 3rd line," Parker stated that one is-has a master bedroom.. Page 34, 1st paragraph, 6th line," Parker disagreed, pointing to the fact that plans vary, and stating that... PB Chair Svekis thanked PB member Ahearn-Koch for her thorough review and comments. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay suggested that it might be easier and save time if the minutes file was transmitted electronically to PB member Ahearn-Koch and as she read them, she marked the typographical errors then ship the electronic file back for corrections before the meeting. It may take more time, but it is something to think about. Minutes were approved as amended. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There was none. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. PB Chair Svekis stated that the materials they received to replace pages in the Zoning Code and the City's Plan, he does not quite understand, especially the City Plan, where they have a new map, like the one for primary streets; added that there is no indication on the pages as to when they were prepared, they still show at the bottom 1 Adopted December 1, 2008." General Manager Smith asked if he is referring to the City's Comprehensive Plan. PB Chair Svekis said, "Yes." General Manager Smith responded that when he updated the comprehensive plan he continued to have at the bottom of that page Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting January 14, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 39 of 39 the date when that plan was adopted. PB Chair Svekis said this could lead to confusion. PB Vice-Chair Lindsay agreed, saying that someone may have an old copy, and someone else may have a new copy, and : PB Chair Svekis noted that they came to a situation like that a few years ago... he stated, he thinks these pages should be dated when they are changed, when there is an update in the book. General Manager Smith agreed to that. PB Chair Svekis pointed out that PB members see this in the Zoning Code; they have Replacement Supplement #14 and Replacement Supplement #15, SO there is visible change, and added that he does not know where that goes back to dates, but somewhere it must. General Manager Smith stated he will see if he can make those changes. PB Vice- Chair Lindsay said that otherwise you get the thing in the package that comes in the mail, you look at it and question if you have the right one, this looks just like the old one, maybe they sent me another copy of the old one, and you don't know what you are doing. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated that she finds that information helpful to look at the most updated version of the Zoning Code. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:40pm. Note: The City's Website address is sarasotagov.com. Select "Watch Live and. Archived Videos" from the Main Web Page to viewagendas, videos ofmeetings, and minutes. Chdl2 - a David Smith, General Manager - Integration Vald Svekis, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]